Legal News for Fri 12/27 - Corporate Transparency Act Halted Again, Judge Newman Transparency Battle and BioNTech COVID Vaccine Royalty Settlement

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Law of Burgos

On December 27, 1512, the Spanish Crown enacted the Laws of Burgos, marking one of the earliest attempts in European colonial history to regulate interactions between colonizers and indigenous peoples. These laws were implemented primarily in the Caribbean and aimed to address the mistreatment of indigenous populations following the Spanish conquests. They formalized the encomienda system, under which Spanish settlers were granted the right to indigenous labor in exchange for providing religious instruction and protection. The laws also sought to prevent outright abuse by prohibiting physical mistreatment and ensuring that indigenous people received basic sustenance and housing.

The Laws of Burgos represented an acknowledgment of the moral and ethical issues raised by colonial expansion, partly influenced by the advocacy of figures like Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos. However, their practical effectiveness was minimal. Enforcement mechanisms were weak, and colonial administrators often disregarded the rules. The encomienda system itself perpetuated exploitation, as it enabled settlers to maintain control over indigenous labor with little oversight.

The laws mandated the conversion of indigenous peoples to Christianity, critics argue that this often served to further entrench colonial domination rather than protect cultural or spiritual rights. Over time, the failure of the Laws of Burgos to alleviate suffering led to further reforms, including the New Laws of 1542, which aimed to abolish the encomienda system altogether. The Laws of Burgos remain a significant moment in legal history for their attempt—however flawed—to impose moral constraints on imperial expansion.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a nationwide injunction against enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), reversing a decision by a different panel of the same court just days earlier. The CTA, intended to combat money laundering, requires U.S. businesses formed before 2024 to disclose their beneficial owners by January 1, 2025. The law was challenged by Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., a firearms retailer, with representation from the Center for Individual Rights. A district court issued an injunction halting enforcement of the CTA on December 3.

However, on December 23, the court's motions panel lifted the injunction, citing the government’s strong likelihood of proving the CTA constitutional. This decision was overturned by a separate panel handling the case’s merits, which reinstated the injunction to maintain the constitutional status quo until the appeal is fully resolved. The case, titled Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland, underscores ongoing legal disputes over the balance between regulatory compliance and constitutional protections.

If ever allowed to come into law, the CTA would mandate most U.S. entities, including corporations, LLCs, and similar structures, to report their beneficial owners—individuals who exercise substantial control or own at least 25% of the entity—to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Exemptions apply to certain entities, such as large, publicly traded companies and those already subject to substantial federal oversight. The CTA's reporting requirements are designed to create a centralized registry of beneficial ownership information, accessible to law enforcement and regulatory agencies for investigative purposes. By implementing these measures, the CTA seeks to close gaps in corporate opacity and align U.S. practices with global anti-money laundering standards.

Corporate Transparency Act Blocked by US Appeals Court Again

US appeals court halts enforcement of anti-money laundering law | Reuters

Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest active federal judge in the U.S., has accused the Federal Circuit of withholding documents related to her suspension to control the media narrative. In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Newman sought to unseal four documents she says highlight Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s and the Judicial Council’s evolving demands for her medical records during their investigation into her fitness to serve. Newman argues that the documents, which include a gag order, do not contain sensitive information warranting secrecy and are critical to her due process claims.

The Federal Circuit contends that sealing the documents is necessary to preserve fairness and protect broader procedural integrity, asserting that they will be released in due course. Newman, however, criticized the delays as unjustified, claiming they serve only to control public perception. She also alleged selective disclosures by the Judicial Council to favorably shape media coverage during the investigation. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Newman continues to challenge her suspension, arguing that the D.C. Circuit has the authority to unseal the contested documents. The case underscores tensions over judicial transparency and due process rights.

Newman Accuses Fed. Cir. of Concealing Files to Control Media

BioNTech has reached settlement agreements with the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) over COVID-19 vaccine royalty disputes. The German company, partnered with Pfizer for vaccine production, will pay $791.5 million to the NIH and $467 million to Penn. Penn will dismiss its lawsuit, which alleged that BioNTech underpaid royalties for using mRNA technology developed by Nobel laureates at the university. Pfizer will reimburse BioNTech for portions of the payments: up to $170 million for Penn and $364.5 million for the NIH.

The settlements include amendments to BioNTech’s licensing agreements with both entities, committing to ongoing royalty payments as a low single-digit percentage of vaccine net sales. Additionally, they establish a framework for licensing the use of NIH and Penn patents in combination products. BioNTech stated that these settlements do not constitute an admission of liability.

BioNTech enters settlement with US agency, UPenn over COVID vaccine royalties | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of the most celebrated composers of the Classical era, was a musical prodigy whose works remain timeless. Born in Salzburg in 1756, Mozart composed over 600 pieces, including symphonies, operas, chamber music, and sonatas, showcasing his unparalleled melodic genius and structural clarity. His works are renowned for their emotional depth and technical mastery, often blending elegance with playful innovation.

Among his many compositions, the Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331, holds a special place for its lyrical beauty. The first movement, Andante grazioso, is a theme with six variations that exemplifies Mozart’s ingenuity in transforming a simple, graceful melody into a vibrant exploration of texture and expression. The movement’s flowing lines and delicate ornamentation reflect Mozart's flair for creating music that is both technically demanding and deeply emotive.

This sonata, likely composed around 1783, radiates a sense of intimacy and charm, making it a favorite in the piano repertoire. The Andante grazioso invites the listener into a world of serene elegance, embodying the Classical ideal of balance and refinement while hinting at the playful brilliance that defines much of Mozart’s work. This week’s closing theme reminds us of the enduring power of music to evoke beauty and joy through simplicity and artistry.

Without further ado, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331, enjoy.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe